John Aston The High Court yesterday overturned a Government control order forcing a terrorism suspect to move out of his home.

John Aston

The High Court yesterday overturned a Government control order forcing a terrorism suspect to move out of his home.

A judge ruled the order must be revoked because the father of five, who can be identified only as BM, had not been given enough information to allow him to instruct lawyers to challenge secret evidence used in the case.

Mr Justice Mitting added he would have upheld the move if the law had allowed him to rely on the evidence kept from BM.

BM, 36, is accused by the security services of being "a prominent member of a network of Islamist extremists".

A modification to a control order already restricting his movements forced him to move out of the east London area to a one-bedroom flat in Leicester.

The Government said the move was necessary to stop BM associating with his extremist contacts "with a view to engaging in terrorist-related activity" and there was a danger of him absconding.

BM's lawyers argued at the High Court in London that his continuing "internal exile", imposed in May, infringed his civil right to occupy his home.

Mr Justice Mitting agreed and ruled the modification deprived BM "of a civil right for a significant period".

The Home Secretary had attempted to justify interfering with that right by arguing there was a risk of BM absconding and his removal from London was necessary to minimise that risk.

But as the Government refused to disclose its secret reasons openly, the decision to make the modification had to be treated as flawed.

The judge said a recent House of Lords decision in the case of AF required that a controlled person "must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him" to enable him to effectively instruct defence lawyers.

The Home Secretary's refusal to reveal secret reports to BM meant the court was left with "a bare assertion" that there was a risk of absconding, and that assertion had to be treated by the court as "groundless".

But the judge said there was "closed material" - evidence heard by him in secret - that would have led to him coming to a different decision if the law had allowed him to take it into account.

The judge said: "On the basis of the closed material, I would have decided that the decision was not flawed and would have upheld the modification, notwithstanding its significant and highly adverse impact upon BM's family, in particular upon his children."

The judge gave the Home Secretary seven days to revoke the order and return BM to his home.

The judge refused leave to appeal, saying the law had been clearly established in the case of AF, but the Home Secretary can still ask the appeal court to hear the case. - PA